I had a dream

I can't remember anything that happened in this dream. The dream was more of a state of knowledge than of a particular series of events. I woke up from this dream in the middle of the night, I think Star Trek was on the BBC, and I made a note of something I had to remember, which is something I often do. "Aviddarr", it says. I seem to remember that it was a name, or more precisely part of a name. A surname, perhaps. Unfortunately I can't remeber anything else about it, except that I was under the impression that it was of great importance.

I see the Office of Fair Trading have done their usual business loving trick: they've decided to take the banks to court over bank charges, an illegal practice the banks indulge in to their massive profit. Many people have got their money back from the banks through the courts but the OFT has decided that all such claims should be immediately suspended for the duration of the as-yet only theoretically upcoming courtcase. It's a deal they've done, the news said. I see what the banks got from this deal, I don't see what the OFT got in return. That's the point of doing a deal, isn't it? Both sides getting some of what they want? All that's happened here is that the banks have been given permission to continue their illegal doings with impunity and the people have been forbidden from challenging them until the end of the court case the OFT are supposedly going to bring eventually. Thanks a lot OFT. The worst case scenario for the banks, therefore, is that they have a couple of years or so, for these cases are incredibly slow even once they get going, of doing what they like and having their way with the public. More likely the OFT will fuck up the court case, the first court case on this issue that will set a precedent, and no-one will be able to reclaim their money from the thieving banks again.

More interesting is the BBC News' presentation of this. I didn't note down the exact words, but it was along the lines of "Have the banks been providing a good service or have we been expecting too much". In other words, are they right or are we wrong? No, of course, and no. We are right and they are wrong. Thieves. Law breakers and outlaws.

I don't supoprt the ragged trousered philanthropist. Whoever's in charge these days seems to want to bring in a government by philanthropy, rich people coulntarily giving their money up for schools and so on (see City Academies) out of the goodness of their hearts and to have their name on the front of the school. Of course with City Academies most of the cost is met by the taxpayer, but my point stands, I think. Philanthropy, in the unlikely event that you can find any (meaning rich people using their money for normally, these days, governmental purposes like providing schools and medical care), has never worked. It's rare, you don't get to be rich by being charitable, but that's not really relevant. Philanthropy was thought in the nineteenth century to be a very good idea but it was abandoned by society at large specifically becaus eit didn't work. It's not on anyway, the education and health of the poor relying on the ill-gotten gains of the rich being doled out to them by their self-proclaimed betters, but there's simply never enough money available to achieve the purposes it's supposedly meant for unless it's coerced byt he government.

Aviddarr. If you know what that means, or what the rest of the name might have been that my brain was trying to tell me about, make sure to get in touch.